On July 2, 2000, a most remarkable historical event took place in Mexico. For the first time in 70 years, an opposition candidate was freely elected to become president, thereby ending the political monopoly of power established by the anarchic and corrupt Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Vicente Fox's victory was an occasion to be celebrated. Indeed, this unprecedented electoral triumph for the opposition was met with waves of optimism from a people who had been disillusioned by decades of inept and repressive government. The long awaited "change" finally seemed to materialize with Fox's victory.
But the electoral "fiesta" would not last very long. The newly elected president has found numerous obstacles along the way, making Mexico's political transition a turbulent ride. Fox's administration has inherited a government immersed in deep fiscal trouble and a highly inefficient bureaucratic system. Moreover, he faces a divided Congress and a hopelessly embittered opposition. For Fox and his team, there is little room for political maneuvering.
Fox's numerous critics have accused him of failing to deliver the "change" he had promised during his campaign. Others claim that the unyielding opposition he faces will effectively prevent him from accomplishing anything at all. But, despite the many bumps along the way, there is an unquestionably different approach to governing under Fox's administration. Furthermore, Fox's electoral victory and subsequent presidency have served as a catalyst for deeper democratization of the political institutions in the country. Mexico is undergoing deep change, which cannot be ignored and must be thoroughly analyzed.
One of the most prominent changes that came with Fox's presidency has been the way in which the Mexican government deals with the Zapatista rebels of Chiapas. The guerrilla type warfare, which erupted in this southern state in 1994, had been quieted down under president Zedillo's mandate, but effective peace had not been reached. The peace accords of San Andres, a series of constitutional amendments formulated by the rebel army and a congressional commission for peace, were ignored during Zedillo's administration. Fox, in his effort to reverse this trend of systemic neglect, assumed an attitude of openness for dialogue. In order to re-establish peace talks, Fox made several concessions to the Zapatista army in what many considered to be a dangerous political game. Mexican Army garrisons were evacuated, Zapatista prisoners were freed, and the peace accords of San Andres were sent to Congress for approval. The top commanders of the Zapatista army have acknowledged the president's conciliatory attitude, and have reopened dialogue with the Mexican government. Even though a final peace treaty has yet to be signed, President Fox's efforts to solve this pending issue of national security certainly are a welcome change.
Perhaps the most significant change in Mexico's political landscape is the revitalized interaction among the three branches of government. Never before have the legislative and judiciary branches enjoyed such autonomy and power as they do today. During the PRI years, the Congress and the Supreme Court were effectively under the control of an all-powerful executive. A true division of powers did not exist in Mexico, and the president's will was the only authority that counted. Along with the growing democratic trend of the past few years, these relationships have evolved to become what now constitutes a more tangible division of powers.
In past decades, the PRI-dominated Congress voted in bloc to pass any piece of legislation suggested by the executive, no questions asked. Today, a divided and liberated Congress is regularly in opposition to the president's will. Throughout this past week, President Fox has been trying to gather support for a desperately needed fiscal reform. However, despite the urgency of such legislation, it is likely that the bill will not pass through Congress. This will translate into a political punch for Fox, and possibly a blow to the nation's fiscal health, but the situation does underscore that Congress is no longer subject to the president's will.
Similarly, the Mexican Supreme Court is now taking a more active role in the nation's politics. Its decisions regarding controversial disputes between federal and state governments are now being taken into account. One such controversial matter being discussed by the Supreme Court judges at this very moment challenges the authority of the federal government to implement daylight savings time in Mexico City. With the end of the PRI's monopoly of power, the relationship between states and the federal government are being redefined. The Supreme Court now has the historic challenge to interpret the Constitution and settle any disputes that may arisen in a new political environment. The highest court in the nation has gained a reputation for equanimity and independence, and it will continue to increase its influence and power in Mexico, as it should.
It would be irresponsible to attribute this series of political changes entirely to Vicente Fox. The democratization current that now pervades Mexico was not created by Fox alone, nor was he its only promoter. There is a wide array of political actors responsible for the more democratic climate in Mexico, not the least of which is the Mexican people. But it must also be acknowledged that Fox's legitimacy as a freely elected president and his unquestionable commitment to maintaining an atmosphere of political liberty and the rule of law has provided the institutional framework under which the longed "change" can materialize.
Rodrigo de Haro is a freshman majoring in international relations and economics.
